Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, gene defects are part of evolution tooth!

The Tasmanian devil for example is about to extinct because of one.

He probably lost his target food to co-extinctions.

reply to post by uva3021

4 BILLION people LAST NIGHT dreamt they had passionate sex with Kate Upton. Has to be all based on experiences, yes?

Show me one instance of an 'alien abduction' where the person had no prior knowledge of the concept of 'alien abductions?'

Oh thats nothing, how about one better, how about an abduction story from someone that doesn't believe in aliens, or abductions?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by uva3021

What do you think evolution is? If you think your friend having ADHD disproves evolution, might I suggest reading a book, or one of the hundreds of wiki articles on evolution that have been posted in this thread.

You are creating your own theory of evolution, imagine someone saying 'i don't believe gravity can occur because I don't like skittles, and because of that gravity can't occur.'

This is what you sound like.

I found an article earler that was claiming that women smoking while pregnant can also create ADHD in the child. So basically your telling me if my mother smoked while pregnant with me, she altered evolution.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by uva3021

 

What do you think evolution is? If you think your friend having ADHD disproves evolution, might I suggest reading a book, or one of the hundreds of wiki articles on evolution that have been posted in this thread.

You are creating your own theory of evolution, imagine someone saying 'i don't believe gravity can occur because I don't like skittles, and because of that gravity can't occur.'

This is what you sound like.

I found an article earler that was claiming that women smoking while pregnant can also create ADHD in the child. So basically your telling me if my mother smoked while pregnant with me, she altered evolution.

No...she poisoned her kid...which isn't the same as evolution

If smoking is really responsible, which hasn't been proven...it can have an influence, but doesn't every single time.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yes, gene defects are part of evolution tooth!

The Tasmanian devil for example is about to extinct because of one.

He probably lost his target food to co-extinctions.

Nope...gene defect...it has nothing to do with that made up word of yours

reply to post by itsthetooth

Evolution is not repeatable, its not predictable, yet your trying to convince me its used in medicine. Thats bat crazy. How can they use a theory that is unprovable in medicine? The only way is if they are using speciation, as its the only thing thats been proven, and even that is not complete.

For crying out loud tooth, switch on your brain for once. Of course it's repeatable and predictable...that's exactly why they're using the theory. They are using it in modern medicine to PREDICT FUTURE OUTCOMES ACCURATELY. You might not like that, but it's a FACT.

Yep, its all speciation, wiki concurs with what your saying. There is no way macroevolution could be used to help in medicine.

Just fyi, speciation IS macroevolution. But whatever, doesn't matter, didn't expect you to actually know the theory you're attacking

Your answers beg more questions

No you can, if you study it close enough, but it's not always easy. Honey could be a target food for bees, Ants could be a target food for anteaters. Krill could be a target food for whales.

How can honey be a target food of bees when they have to produce it themselves? Isn't that a redundant adaptation? Why do you keep saying "could?" If you are going to rely on your concept of target foods, shouldn't you have a more reliable standard than "it seems to me...?"

Even if you don't believe dogs are the same species as wolves, one of the pig-fed wolves from my first post was 14 years old. Not as old as my dog, but still older than any wild wolf. So the point stands, how could a wolf live longer on non target food pigs than wild wolves if target foods are supposed to be more beneficial than non target foods?

Scavenging might be a sign that something is very wrong.

Why? Whats wrong with vultures and flies? Many animals are dedicated scavengers, why is that a problem? What makes you think we would ever have to have been something other than scavengers/gatherers if we survive so well doing it? There have to be scavengers, and lots of them, for any ecosystem to work. In your definition of target food you stated that animals could have multiple target foods.

Second a target food will be a main supplement to a species, and could be observed as the only food, but might just be a larger part of a larger menu.

(bold added by me)
It seems obvious to me that humans were "designed" with multiple target food types in mind. Why else would we have both canines and molars, if not to be able to eat meat as well nuts/seeds? We're obviously not as specialized as an anteater because there is no question we were meant to be eating at least two different types of foods.

Your last response confuses me most of all. I asked "They use us for food, shelter, and to spread their eggs in a very clear predator/prey relationship Is this not a "natural" relationship? If not, then what is?"
You replied:

If humans were the only indigenous host to tape worms, I would question if its possible that they were brought here in a host. But the fact is that parasite attacks a lot of things with intestines.

...So you are agreeing that the relationship between man and parasite is natural? Tapeworms do prey on a lot of things with intestines. I believe all mammals have at least one species of tapeworm which preys on them, including anteaters. What could be more natural a relationship than that? So like I said earlier, you can stop arguing with colin about house sparrows and natural relationships with animals, because it is clear that humans do have them.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats because your going under the notion that sleep paralysis causes the theory of abduction. Which is total crap.

Now it is ‘The Theory of Abduction’ . The way you use the English language is akin to the way a clown uses custard pies.

Only because not everyone reports when it happens.

That is not what your link says:

The experience begins most often when the person is at home in bed (Wright 1994) and most often at night

Under the heading theories, subjects from mentally ill, Temporal lobe liability and sleep paralysis are discussed. None of which you remark on. You just base your argument on the discredited and seriously flawed numbers.

The sample of people taking the poll (they did not question 4 million people) Used what can only be termed leading questions. If you have every put together a survey you can pretty much get the answers you want by the way you ask the questions.

But of course even though the purpose of the link you provided was to question that 4 million number you choose to cherry pick, out of context, the part that you believe supports your religion. The fact is that it highlights how dishonest you are even to yourself. Well done, even you prove you wrong.

Finally here is how the author ends his piece:

These findings do not and cannot prove that no real abductions are occurring on this planet. What they do show is that knowledge of the appearance and behaviour of abducting aliens depends more on how much television a person watches than on how many “indicator experiences” he or she has had. I conclude that the claim of the Roper Poll, that 3.7 million Americans have probably been abducted, is false.

Notice the author says he 'concludes that the claim of the Roper Poll, that 3.7 million Americans have probably been abducted, is false' That makes your claim based on that link pathetic. Well done

He came from the same place that they other 5 million species came from, we don't know to be sure.

Evolution Shows how and has the fossil record to prove it as you have been shown many times. The Ant Eater

It doesn't matter, you get the point.

I take it from you very poor use of English and no attempt at clarity I can assume that means you conceded defeat. About time, 'target food' rejected.

Neither, I'm thinking there is something we don't know or understand. Since creation is to tuff to grasp it does make more sense because there is way to much life.

So if neither statement from you is correct they and your answer above are just barefaced lies. The thing staring you in the face that describes the diversity we see is Evolution and yes, you clearly do not understand it due to wilful denial on your part to safeguard your homemade religion. I ask again why are you infesting this thread?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yes, gene defects are part of evolution tooth!

The Tasmanian devil for example is about to extinct because of one.

He probably lost his target food to co-extinctions.

He cant loose what does not exist as you have already accepted. 'Target food' is another fantasy creation born from a very poor education and the mind of a desperate fantasist.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Thats because your going under the notion that sleep paralysis causes the theory of abduction. Which is total crap.

Oh well, it would appear that this is "just a theory".

Are we picking an choosing which theories we accept as fact and which we dismiss as postulated and hypothesised....I think we are.

(to avoid confusion...when I say we...I mean You)

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by uva3021

 

What do you think evolution is? If you think your friend having ADHD disproves evolution, might I suggest reading a book, or one of the hundreds of wiki articles on evolution that have been posted in this thread.

You are creating your own theory of evolution, imagine someone saying 'i don't believe gravity can occur because I don't like skittles, and because of that gravity can't occur.'

This is what you sound like.

I found an article earlier that was claiming that women smoking while pregnant can also create ADHD in the child. So basically your telling me if my mother smoked while pregnant with me, she altered evolution.

That is a lie which is why you never provided that link. I don’t even recall the subject of smoking ever being mentioned in your link and I am still waiting for the quote from it showing me where it states ADHD changes genes. You should be ashamed

reply to post by MrXYZ

No...she poisoned her kid...which isn't the same as evolution

If smoking is really responsible, which hasn't been proven...it can have an influence, but doesn't every single time.

psychcentral.com...

Thats right, but only recently did they discover the gene, which means that prior to that discovery evolutionists would have claimed it as A CHANGE.

reply to post by MrXYZ

For crying out loud tooth, switch on your brain for once. Of course it's repeatable and predictable...that's exactly why they're using the theory. They are using it in modern medicine to PREDICT FUTURE OUTCOMES ACCURATELY. You might not like that, but it's a FACT.

I see so they can just see evolution in modern medicine, just not in humans.

Sorry man I don't buy it, if they were able to show a predictive value, they would also be able to tell us what exactly it is that we are going to evolve into.

Just fyi, speciation IS macroevolution. But whatever, doesn't matter, didn't expect you to actually know the theory you're attacking

Hey I know the feeling, you guys are in the same boat and sometimes its actually funny, with as many times that I have spewed out the same things, and you still don't get it.

reply to post by mastermindkar

How can honey be a target food of bees when they have to produce it themselves? Isn't that a redundant adaptation? Why do you keep saying "could?" If you are going to rely on your concept of target foods, shouldn't you have a more reliable standard than "it seems to me...?"

There are other qualifying factors, that don't allow it to be that simple, which is why I made the definition. You have to make sure something passed by all of the definition.

Even if you don't believe dogs are the same species as wolves, one of the pig-fed wolves from my first post was 14 years old. Not as old as my dog, but still older than any wild wolf. So the point stands, how could a wolf live longer on non target food pigs than wild wolves if target foods are supposed to be more beneficial than non target foods?

Because they are NOT the same species like evolutionists want us to believe.

Why? Whats wrong with vultures and flies? Many animals are dedicated scavengers, why is that a problem?

Whats wrong with them ? They appear to have to intended food, thats a big problem.

What makes you think we would ever have to have been something other than scavengers/gatherers if we survive so well doing it? There have to be scavengers, and lots of them, for any ecosystem to work. In your definition of target food you stated that animals could have multiple target foods.

It's real simple, it doesn't matter if you believe in evolution, or creation, I like to think that evolution might even have had intelligence behind it as well, if at all possible. Whoever or what ever thats responsible for making us, was obviously intelligent enough that you might say they knew what they are doing. They would also be just as smart to make sure that we had food to eat otherwise the effort behind the design is void.

We would never go through the trouble of making a car, to find out that Gas would never be invented. Evolution tends to be more of a crap shoot, like you just get what you get, which is another reason why things can't work that way. There is no way things can say in a balance relying on a crap shoot, much less would they have food to eat.

It seems obvious to me that humans were "designed" with multiple target food types in mind. Why else would we have both canines and molars, if not to be able to eat meat as well nuts/seeds? We're obviously not as specialized as an anteater because there is no question we were meant to be eating at least two different types of foods.

An astute observation which I will agree with. You just have to remember that your also limited on only understanding the food we have today, which may be nothing like the food we are suppose to have. What I'm trying to say is that there could be one or a few foods that require those two types of teeth for sure. Evern the size of our mouths, and how far we can open our mouths tells a little bit about the intended food, as does the design of our teeth. It's not hard to realize once you really get thinking about it, there is something very wrong. We don't fit with what we have on earth.

Your last response confuses me most of all. I asked "They use us for food, shelter, and to spread their eggs in a very clear predator/prey relationship Is this not a "natural" relationship? If not, then what is?"
You replied:

Wll it has the signs of proving we might be from earth, provided they are from here as well, but my point was that they are not picky about who they use as a host and by no means do they prefer humans.

...So you are agreeing that the relationship between man and parasite is natural? Tapeworms do prey on a lot of things with intestines. I believe all mammals have at least one species of tapeworm which preys on them, including anteaters. What could be more natural a relationship than that? So like I said earlier, you can stop arguing with colin about house sparrows and natural relationships with animals, because it is clear that humans do have them.

They could almost qualify as being a relationship, but the problem is this is all they do and all they know and they are not picky.

Another example is the house sparrow, if he were also building homes with bears, cows, pigs, and half a dozen other life, we certainly wouldn't feel so special about him living in our homes.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sorry man I don't buy it, if they were able to show a predictive value, they would also be able to tell us what exactly it is that we are going to evolve into.

On page 444 and you demonstrate no knowledge of what evolution describes. That takes a really special level of ignorance. Well done as I expect it is your only achievement.

reply to post by colin42

Now it is ‘The Theory of Abduction’ . The way you use the English language is akin to the way a clown uses custard pies.


Only because not everyone reports when it happens.

That is not what your link says:

It is this other life in the cosmos that has placed us in this compramising position, so of course I'm bringing them up. The link never mentioned the absence of reports, its just a fact of life.

Under the heading theories, subjects from mentally ill, Temporal lobe liability and sleep paralysis are discussed. None of which you remark on. You just base your argument on the discredited and seriously flawed numbers.

The sample of people taking the poll (they did not question 4 million people) Used what can only be termed leading questions. If you have every put together a survey you can pretty much get the answers you want by the way you ask the questions.

But of course even though the purpose of the link you provided was to question that 4 million number you choose to cherry pick, out of context, the part that you believe supports your religion. The fact is that it highlights how dishonest you are even to yourself. Well done, even you prove you wrong.

Finally here is how the author ends his piece:

Well 4 million is very high, and even at the cost of there being errors, you still have a lot of explaining to do. Do you have something that tells us that you know all of these people aren't being honest?

Notice the author says he 'concludes that the claim of the Roper Poll, that 3.7 million Americans have probably been abducted, is false' That makes your claim based on that link pathetic. Well done

Well thats his opinion based on HIS poll, but he hasn't proven any of them false, he's just speculating.

Evolution Shows how and has the fossil record to prove it as you have been shown many times

Whilst fossil records never are able to prove conclusivly that a species has branched off from another one. It's useless.

I take it from you very poor use of English and no attempt at clarity I can assume that means you conceded defeat. About time, 'target food' rejected

Your trying to argue with the common sense that every species is supposed to have something to eat. If thats what you choose to argue, go ahead, I bet you have something to eat tonight.

So if neither statement from you is correct they and your answer above are just barefaced lies. The thing staring you in the face that describes the diversity we see is Evolution and yes, you clearly do not understand it due to wilful denial on your part to safeguard your homemade religion. I ask again why are you infesting this thread?

You mean why am I trying to deinfest it, because its infested with evolution that has never and can't ever be proven. LIes lies lies.

reply to post by colin42

He cant loose what does not exist as you have already accepted. 'Target food' is another fantasy creation born from a very poor education and the mind of a desperate fantasist.

Your probably right colin, everything isn't suppose to be able to have food to eat.

reply to post by idmonster

Oh well, it would appear that this is "just a theory".

Are we picking an choosing which theories we accept as fact and which we dismiss as postulated and hypothesised....I think we are.

(to avoid confusion...when I say we...I mean You)

If just under 4 million people are reporting to have made contact with other life, it might actually be something worth thinking about, even if the numbers are skewed bases on TV access.

reply to post by colin42

That is a lie which is why you never provided that link. I don’t even recall the subject of smoking ever being mentioned in your link and I am still waiting for the quote from it showing me where it states ADHD changes genes. You should be ashamed

psychcentral.com...
Smoking while pregnant.

psychcentral.com...
The genetics of adhd

When a person is aflicted with ADHD, it will appear in their genes.
So if me saying adhd changes our genes, sounded weird, I wasn't saying it correctly.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It is this other life in the cosmos that has placed us in this compramising position, so of course I'm bringing them up. The link never mentioned the absence of reports, its just a fact of life.

Nope. Your boring me. You refuse to read the information you linked too. Proof if any is needed that your argument collapsed again and no you go into denial. No further comment.

Well 4 million is very high, and even at the cost of there being errors, you still have a lot of explaining to do. Do you have something that tells us that you know all of these people aren't being honest?

You are even ignorant about how polls and surveys are carried out. I have nothing to explain, Your link was all about the author explaining why the claim of 4 million was false. You on the other hand need to explain how you claim 4 million to be true using the same source that say's it is not

Well thats his opinion based on HIS poll, but he hasn't proven any of them false, he's just speculating.

See what happens when you read. He showed the people that claimed 4 million were the ones speculating using seriously flawed data. Another of your links that leaves you red faced and denying. Incredible

Whilst fossil records never are able to prove conclusivly that a species has branched off from another one. It's useless.

Yep you are, very. More evidence you choose to ignore. You must be really snug in 'happy ever after land' so why keep leaving it to come here to get a beating with your own ignorance every time you do?

Your trying to argue with the common sense that every species is supposed to have something to eat.

Here's your illogical straw man.

If thats what you choose to argue, go ahead, I bet you have something to eat tonight.

And that has what to do with your crazy made up term based on your very poor education and inability to read or write coherently? Talking to you is like talking to a parrot. It knows some words but has no idea of their meaning and repeats them over and over again. You know the other thing you have in common with parrots? ................. NUTS

You mean why am I trying to deinfest it, because its infested with evolution that has never and can't ever be proven. LIes lies lies.

Squawk! Who's a silly boy then?